Lester v Allied Concrete CL08-150 102111 Final-Order

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITYOF CHARLOTTESVILLE ISAIAH LESTER, Administrator of the Estateof JessicaLynn Scott Lester

, deceased Plaintiff,

v.
ALLIED CONCRETE COMPANY and WILLIAM DONALD SPROUSE, Defendants. and ISALAH LESTER, Plaintiff"

CaseNo. CLOS-ISO

v.
ALLIED CONCRETE COMPANY and WILLJAM DONALD SPROUSE Defendants. FINAL ORDER

CaseNo.CL09-223

On the 23rd day of September, 2011, camethe parties, IsaiahLester ("Lester"), of Jessica Lynn ScottLester, by his Counsel, Malcolm P. McConnell, Administrator of the III, Esq. ("McConnell"), and Defendants Allied Concrete Company ("Allied") and William Donald Sprouse, by their counsel, Benjamin G. Chew, Esq. Rory E. Adams, Esq., John W. Zunka, Esq. and RichardH. Milnor, Esq. and camethe beneficiaries, Gary C. Scott and Jeannine Scott, by their counsel, JosephA. Sanzone, Esq.,plus Matthew B. Murray ("Murray") by his counsel, Thomas Williamson, Esq. and Marlina Smith("Smith") by her counsel, M. Bryan Slaughter, Esq. and MalcolmP. McConnell, Esq. by his counsel, RobertT. HaH, Esq. as well as Allen, Allen, Allenand Allen, by its counsel, Hugh M. Fain, III, Esq., for an evidentiary hearing pursuantto the Court's Orderdated September 1, 2001, granting Defendants' post-trial motions for sanctions against Murray and Lesterwherein the Court, in addition to hearing arguments of counsel, received testimony of expertwitnesses, received memoranda from Defendants, Murray, Lester and Allen, Allen, Allen and Allen, andreceivedevidence of billingrecords reflecting attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Defendants relating to the spoliation of evidence and other misconduct identified in the aforementioned Orderof September 1;2011; and WHEREAS.. the Courthas subsequently reviewed Defendants' Supplemental and RevisedJanuary 18,2011 Memoranda of Costs and Fees Incurred Related to Motionfor

Sanctions Plaintiffs Spoliationof Evidencefiled on September 22,2011, detailingfees and to expensesand has also received and reviewedObjections of Mathew B. Murray, Defendants' Supplemental and Revised January 18~ 2011 Memoranda of Costs and directedto Thomas W. accompanied by analysis and critiqueby G.A. "Chip" Kalbaugh, Williamson, Jr. Esq., dated September 30, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Court has carefullyconsidered all of the arguments of Murray and Lester that the fees and expenses sought are excessive, including, but not limited to, contentions that all but a portion of the fees sought were neither reasonable, necessary nor causedby the sanctioned conduct,that fees sought were in contravention of litigationbilling guidelines of the insurance companies, involvedtoo many attorneys and stan: that hourly rates of all attorneys and staffwere excessive, that retentionof Mr. Roche, plus all local counsel was unnecessary and that the litigationwith Facebook in Californiawas unnecessary, undulyexpensive and timeconsuming; and WHEREAS, the Court, havingreviewedthe evidenceand arguments of counsel and carefully considered the extensivepatternof deceptiveand obstructionist conductof Murray and Lester resulting in the sanction award, finds that most of the substantial fees and costs expended by Defendants were necessaryand appropriate to address and defend against such conduct, with the actions required by Defendants having been accurately summarized under the heading entitled "Timeline of Spoliation Events" set forth on pages 3-6 of Defendants' Rebuttalto Mathew Murray's and Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Memorandum of Costs and Fees; and WHEREAS, after considering the objections of Murray and Lester as set forth above,and after rendering deductions where the Court determined such objections to be well-founded, the Court, having considered the time and effort expendedby the attorneys, the nature of the services rendered, the complexity of the services, the value of the services to the client, the results obtained, whetherthe fees incurredwere consistent with those generally charged for similar services, and whether the services were necessary and appropriate in light of the Court's Orderof September I, 2011, see, e.g., West Square, L.L.C v. Communication Techs., 274 Va. 425 (2007), finds as follows:
1. The total of fees and expenses found to be payable to Defendants is $722,000, with the sum of $625,11 0 due Patton Boggs LLP and the sum of $96,890 due Zunka, Milnor & Carter, Ltd.; 2. Of the grand total set forth above, Murray is obligated for, and is hereby ORDERED to remit to Defendants, the sum of $542,000; and 3. Of the grandtotal set forth above, Lester is obligated for, and hereby ORDERED to remit to Defendants, the sum 01'$180,000; and

from

being nothing further remaining for resolution in this docket ofthis Court.

it

hereby DISMISSED

The Clerk is directedto mail true copies of the foregoing Final Order to all counsel of, record.

Endorsements are dispensed with pursuant to Rule 1:13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.